 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Badillo v. Mid Century Insurance Co.6/21/2005
L TO SETTLE A COVERED LOSS
The trial record is devoid of proof of the insurers' bad faith either to indemnify or defend their insured. The insurers neither acted in bad faith nor denied a benefit owed their insured under the policy. The requisite elements of the tort in suit were not established. Liability at nisi prius was hence incorrectly imposed.
The Elements of a Bad-Faith Claim
The Christian bad-faith tort imposes liability upon an insurer "only where there is a clear showing that the insurer unreasonably, and in bad-faith, withholds payment of the claim of its insured."
The conduct of an insurer must be examined in light of the information known or knowable by the insurer at the time performance under the contract was requested. When presented with a claim by its insured, an insurance company must tender prompt payment due under the terms of its policy.
The elements of a bad-faith claim require that an insurer do not:
(1) Be Unreasonable;
(2) Take action in bad-faith;
(3) Act to withhold a benefit owed to its insured under the terms of the policy.
The presence of the claim's requisite elements must be proved and judicially assessed in light of information that was known or knowable to the insurer at the time benefits were alleged to have been tortiously withheld.
The Elements Of A Bad-Faith Tort Claim Must Be Those Which Harm The Insured, Not Another Person
The bad-faith tort was crafted to ameliorate the unequal bargaining power of an insured vis-a-vis the insurer. It injects a public-law element into the contract-based status that governs the parties. The duty to act in good faith is derived from the contractual relationship between an insurer and its insured. The bad-faith tort is a private-law remedy inuring exclusively to the insured. It serves to vindicate a harm dealt to the insured by the insurer's substandard conduct.
The Trial Court Erred By Not Granting, At The Close Of The Evidence, The Insurer's Motion For A Directed Verdict
A motion for directed verdict may be sustained only when there is an entire absence of proof on an issue on the claim's merits or defense and should be denied when there are questions upon material facts or reasonable persons could differ on the choice of inferences to be drawn from the facts in evidence. To determine whether a plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdict, the trial court must consider as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, and disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the movant. Only if all the inferences to be drawn from the evidence favor the moving party will a directed verdict withstand appellate scrutiny. We review de novo the denial of insurers' motion for directed verdict.
There is here no record evidence that proves a withholding of benefits owed to the insured under the policy. Undisputed proof clearly establishes that payment was tendered to counsel for Ms. Smith (the third-party claimant) on behalf of Badillo (insured). That tender was rejected. Upon judgment against the insured, the insurers once again tendered the policy limits to fulfill their indemnification obligation of the policy. Insured's attempts to weave a bad-faith claim from the insurers' withholding of a statement sought from the insured clearly must fail. There is no legal support for that position.
Evidence relating to the state of mind of the third-party's lawyers' willingness to settle an unfiled lawsuit is irrelevant to a bad-faith analysis and to f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|